More conformance tests, fix some corner cases #1883
Conversation
|
This reports what looks like a genuine issue but I did not yet have time to look into it. Specifically |
This comment was marked as off-topic.
This comment was marked as off-topic.
|
I cherry-picked #1884 on top of this branch to see what failure CI runs into next |
|
The next failure is due to a wrong |
fingolfin
force-pushed
the
mh/conformance-more
branch
2 times, most recently
from
2c7f642
to
8c52790
Compare
fingolfin
force-pushed
the
mh/conformance-more
branch
3 times, most recently
from
0b10ec8
to
2b6c23f
Compare
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #1883 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 87.25% 87.65% +0.39%
==========================================
Files 97 97
Lines 35753 35759 +6
==========================================
+ Hits 31197 31343 +146
+ Misses 4556 4416 -140 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
fingolfin
force-pushed
the
mh/conformance-more
branch
from
2b6c23f
to
e7e611e
Compare
|
|
||
| Syy, yy = polynomial_ring(Native.GF(ZZRingElem(36893488147419103363)), "y") | ||
| T2, z2 = Native.finite_field(yy^2 + 1, "z") | ||
| test_Field_interface_recursive(T2) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
why did you remove the above tests?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I removed them because they seemed to be redundant: they all test a FqPolyRepField, just constructed in different ways. But we already test the constructors elsewhere, and for testing the ring conformance, it shouldn't matter how we constructed the field.
... to allow us to run conformance tests
fingolfin
force-pushed
the
mh/conformance-more
branch
from
e7e611e
to
b9eab9a
Compare
fingolfin
changed the title
No description provided.